Hellenistic Timeline Scenarios

[herkles]

Hello,

So I am working on a Hellenistic Era timeline but I have several broad concepts in my head, so I am looking for advice as to which direction to go.

The (re) united Empire
This scenario comes in two flavors. Though the core concept here is exploring the impacts of what the impacts of Alex's Empire surviving for some time, even if it had to be reunited.

Scenario 1: Alexander lives a bit longer, and then Hephaestion becomes regent for Alex IV who works to keep the empire united
Scenario 2: It is one of the Diadochi that reunites his empire in the Wars of the Diadochi . Currently looking Seleukos I Nikator, though honestly any of the Diadochi could conceivably work here. .

The Multipolar Hellenistic World
This is much more similar OTL with various successor kingdoms, though lasting longer then in OTL. The big question for the two scenarios is the exact major power that emerges out of the chaos that is the Diadochi wars.

Scenario 3: This would have the major empire be the Ptolemies who dominate the Eastern Mediterranean. Though there are challenges such a Bosporan Kingdom that controls all of the Black Sea, the Romans, Seleucids, Armenians, Carthaginians, and Macedonians.

Scenario 4: This would have the major empire be Pyrrhus' empire which would eventually locate its capital in the city of Byzantion; so an actual Byzantine Empire, and one that is polytheistic. They would have to deal with other majors like the Seleucids, Ptolemiec Egypt, Rome, Carthage, Bosporan Kingdom, Armenians.

So I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions, thoughts, feedback here to help focus my efforts on the different timeline.

 

[SolRon]

I'd say scenario 4 (the early byzantine one) would be good, as the united empire bit's been done to death if you ask me

 

[Vargulfr]

Honestly scenario 3 sounds super interestin. Don’t really see man TLs with either the Bosporan or Odrysian kings being big players

 

[Paschalis]

I think scenario 4 sounds the most interesting i always wondered how strong such a "true" byzantine empire would be with the superb location of this capital

 

[Derek Pullem]

Scenario 2 with an Antigonid victory at Ipsus is one I'm surprised hasn't been done more often.

 

[SunKing105]

Scenario 2 with an Antigonid victory at Ipsus is one I'm surprised hasn't been done more often.

IMO by Ipsus it's too late, it delays Antigonus' downfall by a few years, a better POD would be to have Nikanor and Evagoras successfully kill Seleucus and retain Babylonia and Persia.

 

[Derek Pullem]

IMO by Ipsus it's too late, it delays Antigonus' downfall by a few years, a better POD would be to have Nikanor and Evagoras successfully kill Seleucus and retain Babylonia and Persia.

That's a view - I'm thinking that after an Antigonid victory at Ipsus we end with with a relatively stable three way split in the Hellenistic world - Antigonus, Seleucus and Ptolemy. Any one of those three could make it to pre-eminence but more likely Antigonus / Demetrius or Seleucus

 

[herkles]

I'd say scenario 4 (the early byzantine one) would be good, as the united empire bit's been done to death if you ask me

Oh you think that a united or reunited empire has been done to death.

Honestly scenario 3 sounds super interestin. Don’t really see man TLs with either the Bosporan or Odrysian kings being big players

Both time lines would feature the Bosporan, though scenario 3 sees them playing a bigger role. I have a soft spot for the Bosporans, as well as the Bactrians from this era 😅

I think scenario 4 sounds the most interesting i always wondered how strong such a "true" byzantine empire would be with the superb location of this capital

It was something that came to me as I was looking at a map of cities from this era and it made me go 'hmm'.

That's a view - I'm thinking that after an Antigonid victory at Ipsus we end with with a relatively stable three way split in the Hellenistic world - Antigonus, Seleucus and Ptolemy. Any one of those three could make it to pre-eminence but more likely Antigonus / Demetrius or Seleucus

Yea the two main guys I am looking at are Antigonus or Selecus. You mentioned that there are not many timelines with Antigonus as the reuniter? Would it be interesting?

I am trying to figure out the focus for my energy here 😅

 

[snerfuplz]

The one problem I see with #4 is that the Theodosian Walls required the wealth of a Mediterranean Empire (or at least control of the lucrative East) to build. A Hellenistic Empire would need to be quite wealthy before attempting a *Constantinople

I'd imagine Nicomedia or Antioch serving as a capital before the expense of *Theodosian Walls could be afforded

 

[Derek Pullem]

Oh you think that a united or reunited empire has been done to death.

Both time lines would feature the Bosporan, though scenario 3 sees them playing a bigger role. I have a soft spot for the Bosporans, as well as the Bactrians from this era 😅


It was something that came to me as I was looking at a map of cities from this era and it made me

Yea the two main guys I am looking at are Antigonus or Selecus. You mentioned that there are not many timelines with Antigonus as the reuniter? Would it be interesting?

I am trying to figure out the focus for my energy here 😅

You could combine 2 & 4. Pyrrhus originally was an ally of Antigonus and fought with Demetrius at Ipsus but eventually fell out with him. Have the Antigonids win Ipsus and have Pyrrhus become their main general but eventually fall out with Demetrius. After a civil war Pyrrhus usurps the Antigonid throne and either forms your Hellenestic Byzantium or reunite the Alexandrian Empire or both

 

[SolRon]

You could combine 2 & 4. Pyrrhus originally was an ally of Antigonus and fought with Demetrius at Ipsus but eventually fell out with him. Have the Antigonids win Ipsus and have Pyrrhus become their main general but eventually fall out with Demetrius. After a civil war Pyrrhus usurps the Antigonid throne and either forms your Hellenestic Byzantium or reunite the Alexandrian Empire or both

Yeah this is a good idea, it would be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[herkles]

The one problem I see with #4 is that the Theodosian Walls required the wealth of a Mediterranean Empire (or at least control of the lucrative East) to build. A Hellenistic Empire would need to be quite wealthy before attempting a *Constantinople

I'd imagine Nicomedia or Antioch serving as a capital before the expense of *Theodosian Walls could be afforded

That is true. something to consider.

You could combine 2 & 4. Pyrrhus originally was an ally of Antigonus and fought with Demetrius at Ipsus but eventually fell out with him. Have the Antigonids win Ipsus and have Pyrrhus become their main general but eventually fall out with Demetrius. After a civil war Pyrrhus usurps the Antigonid throne and either forms your Hellenestic Byzantium or reunite the Alexandrian Empire or both

Now some ideas are getting shapped in my head.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Scenario 2: It is one of the Diadochi that reunites his empire in the Wars of the Diadochi . Currently looking Seleukos I Nikator, though honestly any of the Diadochi could conceivably work here. .

We just had a thread on this one, I think basically the most likely outcome is things go to shit for the Seleucids after Seleucus dies and they end up in a similar, though probably slightly more advantageous position as they were when Seleucus died IOTL. However someone else, particularly Eumenes uniting the empire as regent for Alexander IV...that would be interesting though incredibly difficult to pull off given Eumenes's personal situation.

You could combine 2 & 4. Pyrrhus originally was an ally of Antigonus and fought with Demetrius at Ipsus but eventually fell out with him. Have the Antigonids win Ipsus and have Pyrrhus become their main general but eventually fall out with Demetrius. After a civil war Pyrrhus usurps the Antigonid throne and either forms your Hellenestic Byzantium or reunite the Alexandrian Empire or both

I don't see why Pyrrhus wouldn't still return to Epirus to try and take up kingship there. I don't really think he's ever going to be in a strong enough position to usurp Demetrius (nor would he likely even be the main alternative to Demetrius). His best bet will always be returning to Epirus and securing Macedonia, and then working from there, but I think he has a pretty low ceiling and Byzantium, given it is its own strong somewhat independently minded Greek city state that would be nearer to the periphery of his empire, would make for a weird capital (especially when, if he wanted to have a capital in that area anyway, Lysimacheia is right there (he could rename it after himself too if he wanted).

In general, it's hard to find a way to figure out how Byzantium could become a capital in this period. Antigonus, Seleucus, Demetrius, Lysimachus, Cassander, all built or were building their own capitals, and for all intents and purposes Ptolemy built Alexandria. The one person who didn't do such a thing, Antigonus II Gonatas, chose the ancestral Macedonian capital of Pella as his base iirc. Choosing Byantium would be kind of like choosing, idk, Corinth-it would be odd and probably unwise to choose a city with such an established autonomous political culture already.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I don't see why Pyrrhus wouldn't still return to Epirus to try and take up kingship there. I don't really think he's ever going to be in a strong enough position to usurp Demetrius (nor would he likely even be the main alternative to Demetrius). His best bet will always be returning to Epirus and securing Macedonia, and then working from there, but I think he has a pretty low ceiling and Byzantium, given it is its own strong somewhat independently minded Greek city state that would be nearer to the periphery of his empire, would make for a weird capital (especially when, if he wanted to have a capital in that area anyway, Lysimacheia is right there (he could rename it after himself too if he wanted).

In general, it's hard to find a way to figure out how Byzantium could become a capital in this period. Antigonus, Seleucus, Demetrius, Lysimachus, Cassander, all built or were building their own capitals, and for all intents and purposes Ptolemy built Alexandria. The one person who didn't do such a thing, Antigonus II Gonatas, chose the ancestral Macedonian capital of Pella as his base iirc. Choosing Byzantium would be kind of like choosing, idk, Corinth-it would be odd and probably unwise to choose a city with such an established autonomous political culture already.

I can see your logic but I'm not sure I agree 100%. The strength of the Diadochii didn't depend as much on the size of the territory they controlled as on their access to high quality troops from Macedonia and its surrounding areas. "Macedonian Phalangites" were highly prized, so much so that contemporary accounts often distinguished between them and other phalangites when describing the size of the armies. And bear in mind that 40,000 "Macedonians" had conquered the entire Persian / Alexandrian empire only 30 years previously. When Demetrius seized Macedon from Cassander it really threw the remaining Successors into a panic - something you wouldn't have expected from the physical size of the kingdom

The argument about Pyrrhus wanting to keep his capital close to his ancestral homelands could have been made for Alexander too who was comfortable ruling from Babylon (even if no one else was). Pyrrhus was no less ambitious and skilled a general than Alexander (all the contemporaries agree) - he just lacked opportunity.

Pyrrhus was able to stand off against Demetrius in OTL so a civil war scenario is not unreasonable.

Another way to put Pyrrhus into control of the Antigonids is to have Demetrius win Ipsus by returning to the battle after his victory on the right flank and avoiding the massed elephants - but dying in the process. This would leave Pyrrhus in a strong position with only Demetrius' 18 year old son in the way of a coup.

As for locating the capital at Byzantium, it is an odd objective. But I could make a case for Pyrrhus founding a capital there in honour of a glorious victory against the Galatians nearby or if the Bosphoran Kingdom is to become much more important then Byzantium essentially controls their grain exports.

 

[Sertorius126]

I can see your logic but I'm not sure I agree 100%. The strength of the Diadochii didn't depend as much on the size of the territory they controlled as on their access to high quality troops from Macedonia and its surrounding areas. "Macedonian Phalangites" were highly prized, so much so that contemporary accounts often distinguished between them and other phalangites when describing the size of the armies. And bear in mind that 40,000 "Macedonians" had conquered the entire Persian / Alexandrian empire only 30 years previously. When Demetrius seized Macedon from Cassander it really threw the remaining Successors into a panic - something you wouldn't have expected from the physical size of the kingdom

The argument about Pyrrhus wanting to keep his capital close to his ancestral homelands could have been made for Alexander too who was comfortable ruling from Babylon (even if no one else was). Pyrrhus was no less ambitious and skilled a general than Alexander (all the contemporaries agree) - he just lacked opportunity.

Pyrrhus was able to stand off against Demetrius in OTL so a civil war scenario is not unreasonable.

Another way to put Pyrrhus into control of the Antigonids is to have Demetrius win Ipsus by returning to the battle after his victory on the right flank and avoiding the massed elephants - but dying in the process. This would leave Pyrrhus in a strong position with only Demetrius' 18 year old son in the way of a coup.

As for locating the capital at Byzantium, it is an odd objective. But I could make a case for Pyrrhus founding a capital there in honour of a glorious victory against the Galatians nearby or if the Bosphoran Kingdom is to become much more important then Byzantium essentially controls their grain exports.

I think you’re overestimating Pyrrhos a little bit. His contemporaries held him in high esteem, he was brave, daring, even chivalrous, and certainly he wasn’t a terrible general, but he lacked a real sense of strategy, and his tactical skills are not even comparable to Alexandros’.

His record in Macedonia is more distinguished for personal bravery than tactical acumen, the battle he won against Pantaukos was hard fought until he killed the man in single combat. Besides that, what he did was mostly raid the territory while Demetrios was somewhere else.

The two battles he won in Italy were half victories, and mostly due to the fact that the Romans didn’t know how to deal with elephants. Once they became familiar with them, Pyrrhos lost.

His campaign in Sicily again consisted in raiding the territory while the enemy held out in several key strongholds. He managed to take them all save one, this doomed his campaign, and everything collapsed around him.

His second campaign in Macedonia was a success, he successfully ambushed Antigonos, and almost managed to seize all of Macedonia. Except that Pyrrhos was quick to alienate every Macedonian by disrespecting the graves of their former kings. And then, shortly after, he went to the Peloponnese, and that was an absolute disaster. This man was definitely not on Alexandros’ level.

Besides this, no matter what, Pyrrhos would still remain a Molossian, and no Macedonian would tolerate for long
To be ruled by a Molossian. Lysimachos successfully ejected Pyrrhos by using this very same argument, and so did Antigonos II.

In the end though, why would the Antigonids even have give command of the army at Ipsos to Pyrrhos? He was 18 years old, with no previous command experience. It would have been a spectacular disaster.

 

[Derek Pullem]

In the end though, why would the Antigonids even have give command of the army at Ipsos to Pyrrhos? He was 18 years old, with no previous command experience. It would have been a spectacular disaster.

Not before Ipsus but after if Antigonas and Demetrius both died. But I take your point about his age - no matter how much he is alleged to have impressed Antigonas he's still a minor prince. He is related by marriage to Demetrius though and will have some influence.

 

[Sertorius126]

Not before Ipsus but after if Antigonas and Demetrius both died. But I take your point about his age - no matter how much he is alleged to have impressed Antigonas he's still a minor prince. He is related by marriage to Demetrius though and will have some influence.

Being related by marriage is a flimsy guarantee once that marriage ends. Antigonos Gonatas was the son of Demetrios and the grandson of Antipatros. Pyrrhos, who’s also about one year younger, with nearly nothing to his name, wouldn’t stand a chance.

 

[Igor MGTOW]

we should also consider a scenario where eumenes wins and restores the argeads reunifying the empire some time later

 

[formion]

What about Scenario 2: Seleucus dies in the battle of Gaza in 312 BC. We get a reunited empire under Antigonus. Since the POD is after 320, Antigonus Gonatas is also born and not butterflied, so you know already the actors for the next 70 years. For me, the Antigonids are the most interesting hellenistic dynasty.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I can see your logic but I'm not sure I agree 100%. The strength of the Diadochii didn't depend as much on the size of the territory they controlled as on their access to high quality troops from Macedonia and its surrounding areas. "Macedonian Phalangites" were highly prized, so much so that contemporary accounts often distinguished between them and other phalangites when describing the size of the armies. And bear in mind that 40,000 "Macedonians" had conquered the entire Persian / Alexandrian empire only 30 years previously. When Demetrius seized Macedon from Cassander it really threw the remaining Successors into a panic - something you wouldn't have expected from the physical size of the kingdom

Yes and Byzantium is not in Macedon.

The argument about Pyrrhus wanting to keep his capital close to his ancestral homelands could have been made for Alexander too who was comfortable ruling from Babylon (even if no one else was). Pyrrhus was no less ambitious and skilled a general than Alexander (all the contemporaries agree) - he just lacked opportunity.

I didn't say he wanted to keep his capital close to his homeland, just that Byzantium is a weird location. Even aside from all the stuff I said about how Hellenistic kings really didn't like using established, semi-autonomous city states as their capital, to the point that none of them did it, Byzantium is just in a weird location for Pyrrhus-it's a healthy distance away from Macedon and southern Greece, where Pyrrhus is going to be spending a lot of time because it's going to be a hotzone, like it was for the Antigonids.

yrrhus was able to stand off against Demetrius in OTL so a civil war scenario is not unreasonable.

Demetrius was significantly weaker at that time, and Pyrrhus was operating as a king with his own, independent army. What army is he commanding under the Antigonids that are going to be more loyal to him than to Demetrius?

Another way to put Pyrrhus into control of the Antigonids is to have Demetrius win Ipsus by returning to the battle after his victory on the right flank and avoiding the massed elephants - but dying in the process. This would leave Pyrrhus in a strong position with only Demetrius' 18 year old son in the way of a coup.

But Demetrius's 18 year old son is more likely to command the loyalty of the Antigonid troops than Pyrrhus who wasn't a particularly big name in the Antigonid cause, just a subordinate commander.

As for locating the capital at Byzantium, it is an odd objective. But I could make a case for Pyrrhus founding a capital there in honour of a glorious victory against the Galatians nearby or if the Bosphoran Kingdom is to become much more important then Byzantium essentially controls their grain exports.

But why found a capital there when a city like Lysimacheia is both right in that vicinity, not that established of a city (can be built up to his own content) and just in a better location for his ends? I don't think it's the likeliest location, just that if he's going to have a capital in that area, Byzantium (which in addition to everything else is on the frontier with the Odrysians) is not even the best capital spot in that area.